Here's my letter and contribution

[carolinebogart]

Hi guys, I want to thank you for this website. In appreciation I have contributed to your website fund, Paypal transaction ID 84R79913SA074093H.

Here is my response letter to Getty Images. I hope it helps others, and if anyone sees a problem with it, I hope you'll give me feedback.

I am confident that the Getty scam is of no real consequence to my client, but I understand his anxiety.

The Getty Images business model depends on that anxiety.

What a disgusting way to make a living. I don't know how these people live with themselves.

Regards,

Caroline Bogart

                     Caroline Bogart
                     Bogart Computing, LLC
March 30, 2014

Getty Images
...
...
Dear ...
We are in receipt of your claim of copyright infringement and request for $395. We understand that Getty Images is claiming copyright against [theAllegedCopyrightInfringementWebsite.com] for using an image depicting a man having back pain. In the name of caution, we have removed all images of that description from the website.

However, we cannot find any images on GettyImages.com that were  also on the client's website. We are unclear as to which image is allegedly in violation. So for this reason, your claim of infringement is in doubt.

Secondly we note that on October 21, 2013, sports photographers  Paul Spinelli, Scott Boehm, Paul Jasienski, George Newman Lowrance, David Stluka, David Drapkin and Thomas E Witte suied Getty Images for copyright infringement. They claim that Getty Images is selling their photographs without the right to do so.

So for this second reason, your claim of copyright infringement is in doubt.

Thirdly, we note that the type of pictures on my client's website sell for about $10 on your site. This makes the fee your are demanding 39.5x the original image cost. Since the site has only been live for three months, the actual value of time is 3 months out of a 12 month license, or 25% of a yearly license, or $2.50. This means your request for $395 is 158x the original image cost.

A fee of 5x or 10x value might be reasonable to high. A claim of 158x the original value is simply not worth discussing.

We take copyright infringement seriously and do respect your right to fees if owed. Please provide proof of copyright in order for us to determine value. Once provided, we will be happy to negotiate a fair settlement for your claim.

Sincerely,

[Greg Troy (KeepFighting)]

Welcome to the forum Caroline,  You letter is well written and makes valid points but be prepared for Getty to say it doesn't matter and continue to demand the money.

Please keep us posted.

[stinger]

I like your letter Caroline.

Greg is correct that Getty will just ignore what you say and come back with their usual message, "pay us."  This could become a problem for you if they chase your client and not you.  They like to find the chinks in one's armor and attack those.  You should be thinking about how to address that potential forthcoming problem.

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

I agree that Getty will simply remove Carolyn from the equation, and pester the client to no end, which is typical whenever there is any push back.

[carolinebogart]

Welcome to the forum Caroline,  You letter is well written and makes valid points but be prepared for Getty to say it doesn't matter and continue to demand the money.

Please keep us posted.

Thanks Greg.

I understand it's 3 years before they have to give up. My feeling is that if we file our letters with the attorney general too, we could reply to their replies with "We would pay you if you would prove you have the right to the money." Since they won't prove they have the right to the money, we won't have a valid debt, and after 3 years they have to stop writing. Do you think I'm off about any of these assumptions?

[carolinebogart]

I like your letter Caroline.

Greg is correct that Getty will just ignore what you say and come back with their usual message, "pay us."  This could become a problem for you if they chase your client and not you.  They like to find the chinks in one's armor and attack those.  You should be thinking about how to address that potential forthcoming problem.

I wonder if the letter should be from the client and from me. Or just from my client. It's a good point. I need to ponder this. Thanks for your reply.

[carolinebogart]

I agree that Getty will simply remove Carolyn from the equation, and pester the client to no end, which is typical whenever there is any push back.

Hi Robert - my maiden name is Krauss, I always feel related when I see names like yours.

We could make the letter from the client. We haven't sent it yet. So the pestering is all in the form of letters, would that be right? Do they ever actually sue? I know they're not going to sue for $395, but I haven't seen any mention yet on the forums of any actual cases brought to court.

[stinger]

Think of it this way, Caroline.  If you have ever seen the movie GlenGarry Glen Ross, Getty and their bands of collectors are like the salesmen in the movie.  They only get paid when they can get someone to send them a check. 

Although they claim to use the law as their justification to get someone to pay, they aren't all that interested in the law.  They, themselves, have been sued (and lost) for mis-appropriating digital images.  What they are interested in, is finding the weakest link in any potential claim and pestering them till they give in.  I honestly don't think it matters if the letter comes from you or the client.  They are going to try to divide you and chase whoever they think gives them the highest possibility of getting a check.

That is a strategy that poses problems for all but the most secure business relationships. 

Too often, we think that what we write in the letter actually matters to Getty.  It doesn't.  What you write in the letter may matter at the Washington State Bar Association, the Better Business Bureau, the Attorney General, or your congressmen, if we can get to the critical mass necessary to get one or more of these groups to act.  What you write in the letter may matter, if they ever decide to sue you or your client.  As you realize, it is not likely that they will over such a small amount.

Disclaimer:  I am not an attorney.  The views expressed above are the opinions of someone who has been following Getty and one of their collector's for a bit over two years now.  I, like many on this forum, welcome the day when Getty changes their business policies for the better in this area.  Until that time, I will be happy to share my opinions with people who seek answers to Getty's confounded business practices.

[Jerry Witt (mcfilms)]

we could reply to their replies with "We would pay you if you would prove you have the right to the money." Since they won't prove they have the right to the money, we won't have a valid debt, and after 3 years they have to stop writing. Do you think I'm off about any of these assumptions?

I would chime in and say you should not offer to pay unless you have the intention to do so.  $400 is more than half of what they have previously tried to squeeze out of people. (It used to be $850 and up.) But if you have no intent to pay that $400 amount, don't say you will. Instead phrase it as, "We cannot discuss your claim before we ensure that you have the right to represent the image."

The bottom line is: If they provided you with the copyright paperwork and a letter from the photographer transferring the rights to the image to Getty, would you pay them $400? If so, then proceed. If that still seems a bit high, then don't offer it up.

[carolinebogart]

Jerry,

thank you, that makes sense.

[carolinebogart]

What a great group of people. Thank you for your generous help.

So I told my friend-client that we should reply that we would like proof of their exclusive right to sell the image before we discuss an alleged claim.

My friend's response was that he was just worried about his credit rating.

I found a post here in which it was claimed that the issue is of a claim not a debt and Getty's never reported their claim as a debt to an agency.

But then I found a post about a bogus Dutch collection agency not registered as a credit collection agency going after an alleged copyright infringer.

I want to respect my friend's concern but I also think Getty is just a bunch of lying thieves and to pay them is the equivalent of paying kidnappers or negotiating with terrorists.

I don't know.

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

yes this is a "claim" and won't effect anyones credit.

[Greg Troy (KeepFighting)]

If they should have NCS Solutions call you or your client just let them know that it is a disputed claim and not a debt, you are dealing with Getty and not to contact you again or you will file a complaint with the FTC.

[DavidVGoliath]

Greg's advice is solid: anyone who passes a "debt" which is based on a civil claim to a collections agency will eventually rue the day they did so pretty much regardless of jurisdiction - most countries have laws on the books against such practices.

[carolinebogart]

Love you guys, thank you so much for your input.

If this helps anyone, here's the final reply.

                     Legal Department
                     xxx
                     xxx
                     xxx                     
Getty Images
605 5th Ave., Suite 400
Seattle, WA 98104
April  15, 2014

To whom it may concern,

We are in receipt of your letter of March 26, 2014, case number yyy.

We cannot discuss this any further without the following:
1.   date(s) image is claimed to be in use
2.   copy of the contract giving Getty Images the right to sell the image on said date(s)
3.   proof of exclusivity of the right to sell said image

Regards,
xxx Legal Department